|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 15 2013 07:30 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:
A problem of a 2 party system. People who dont stand fully behind a party still join because there is no where else to go which can lead to a problem in attaining a clear standpoint and fractures inside the party. so vote 3rd party. If you vote for this election, you are just a cog in the election machine. If you vote for the next election by voting 3rd party, you send a signal that your vote could be claimed by either party in the next election if they put some effort into courting you. The idea that if you vote 3rd party your vote doesn't matter and you are throwing it away is precisely backwards, it's when you vote blue because of a lesser evil that your vote doesn't matter because then they don't have to give a shit about you. if they run warren in the next election I'll vote for her, otherwise gonna keep voting green
Doesnt solve a thing.
There are only 2 parties in the US who can win do to the "winner takes all" system and there are more then 2 political opinions on the country. If a party moves to court 1 vote they probably lose another somewhere.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 15 2013 06:45 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 05:50 oneofthem wrote:
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win. I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from. They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount. SourceWhat issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe?
more of a tactical choice and reality-imagination dissonance per the differing stance on actual voting issues. but in terms of what they believe and are, republicans are more entrenched and reactionary than ever.
|
On September 15 2013 07:30 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 06:53 Gorsameth wrote:
A problem of a 2 party system. People who dont stand fully behind a party still join because there is no where else to go which can lead to a problem in attaining a clear standpoint and fractures inside the party. so vote 3rd party. If you vote for this election, you are just a cog in the election machine. If you vote for the next election by voting 3rd party, you send a signal that your vote could be claimed by either party in the next election if they put some effort into courting you. The idea that if you vote 3rd party your vote doesn't matter and you are throwing it away is precisely backwards, it's when you vote blue because of a lesser evil that your vote doesn't matter because then they don't have to give a shit about you. if they run warren in the next election I'll vote for her, otherwise gonna keep voting green
Why do you like her?
|
because I hate wall street and so does she. She's the only politician I know of talking anti-banks rhetoric. So I'll vote for her, but no other democrat because they are just a bunch of weaksauce not-even-social-democrat liberals. I want somebody who will take a stand against the hostile takeover of america on the part of finance and corporate interests, and she's the closest thing I've got
|
On September 15 2013 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals)  The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen. I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities. That's what the Republican Party stands for. Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks. At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans.
You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..."
|
On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals)
It is precisely their legacy for inaction that they acquire the label. McCain talked pretty tough on the borders to defeat his primary challenger, but made it to Washington and failed to make that a reality in the immigration bill. Furthermore, he wanted to pass amnesty in ways that the courts would interpret as full citizenship apart from any border enforcement. It would lead to another amnesty bill needing passage in another ten to twenty years. Boehner pretty obviously talks tough and surrenders on the issues. He surrenders on every new debt fight. It's their actions or inaction that sets them apart. The electorate is slowly getting more involved, which is why tea party candidates unseated the GOP candidates in so many races since 2010. This being despite the GOP giving their funding to the other candidate. It's a pretty clear schism when the party candidate can't get traction with the financial support of their own party.
On September 15 2013 01:17 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks. No, they aren't. Do you understand the scope of this bill? It's really not very surprising considering the infrastructure that is necessary for it to be implemented. But no, president R̶o̶m̶n̶e̶y̶ Obama knows it's a bad idea and that's why he's trying not to implement it. Oh wait. That picture isn't a news source. That picture is asinine propaganda for morons. I know you're feeling defensive and you definitely don't want to look wrong. But your 'evidence' is nowhere near strong enough to support your conclusion. You're trying to say that the number of delays and changes is abnormal and therefore something funny is going on with the bill. Unfortunately you first have to prove that the changes are abnormal and you haven't, so your point falls flat. You have to first explain why a bill of this size in this day and age wouldn't have changes pre-implementation. Also, on your whole 'republicans are going strong minus RINOs' spiel let me introduce you to a applicable historical quote: "Guys, we're still winning." - Hitler, April 30 1945 or, if ancient history isn't your thing, we can do something more recent. "Romney's definitely going to win this." - xDaunt, November 6, 2012
I hashed and rehashed points on Obamacare the bill was being considered. What's wrong with it, why it will increase health insurance premiums, why it will hurt businesses, why it will hurt full-time workers, why its taxes will hurt medical device innovation, how it will hurt health plan choice. I will simply say that if you heard how it was sold and what was in it during passage, and now see how many questionable amendments and delays are currently enacted, and think that's totally expected, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to spend another three paragraphs building the argument that the delays are a result of administration ineptitude and symptomatic of a bad, bloated bill. That's not the main thrust of my point on the TPM article. If 19 delays and changes are okay with you, I doubt any arguing on my part is going to change your mind. Oh and thanks for the armchair psychology. It becomes you.
And to current discussion, if the Republican party cannot get its leadership rear in gear soon, they'll deserve a fracturing. They only have so much time to consistently not represent the wishes of their base. When the impact of Obamacare is felt more fully, there won't be as much complacency about this issue.
|
FLETCHER, N.C. — Tea party activists, once unquestioned as a benefit to the Republican Party for supplying it with votes and energy, are now criticizing GOP leaders at seemingly every turn.
They're demanding that Congress use upcoming budget votes to deny money for putting in place President Barack Obama's 2010 health care law, despite warnings the strategy could lead to a government shutdown.
They're upset that Republicans didn't block a Senate-passed immigration bill.
Many are outspoken opponents of any U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war.
A recent Pew Research Center survey found that more than 7 in 10 self-identified "tea party Republicans" disapprove of the job performance of GOP congressional leaders.
Many of the major tea party groups are backing 2014 primary challengers against Republicans the activists deem too moderate, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky conservative once declared it his job to make Obama a one-term president.
That leaves some Republicans quietly worried that an intraparty tussle could yield a repeat of 2012. That year, conservative candidates lost winnable Senate races, and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney struggled to win over conservatives while still appealing to moderate swing voters.
The health care debate puts the GOP in its tightest spot. Wary Republicans recall the 1995-96 government shutdowns under President Bill Clinton, who persuaded many voters to blame the GOP and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican, for that budget impasse.
McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other GOP congressional leaders endorse the idea to "defund Obamacare." But some also have tried to persuade core supporters that it won't happen because Democrats run the Senate and Obama won't gut his signature domestic achievement.
Source
|
Aside from an almost balanced budget, welfare reform, two seats in the Senate all with the same loss of house seats that was going to happen anyways, the 1995 government shutdown did nothing. What a conveniently short memory we have on famous budget fights in the last twenty years.
We already talked about how two-faced the congressional leaders are on the idea of defunding Obamacare. They're for the idea up until actually having to act on the idea.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Oft seen political cartoon that seems apt here. I don't agree with the GOP positions but if they got voted in to cut taxes, defund healthcare reform, and all that conservajazz then they should do it to the best of their abilities. If someone wins an election based on a platform, they should execute that platform and give their constituents what they wished for, for better or for worse.
|
On September 15 2013 10:06 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals) The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen. I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities. That's what the Republican Party stands for. Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks. At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans. You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..."
Cartoon version? I cited specific examples from prominent leaders of the party. My examples didn't come from the crazy ones. You're acting downright delusional. There's absolutely nothing cartoonish about what I said, sadly. The real world does in fact work this way. Would you like more examples? Because I will be happy to provide more if you want me to.
Perhaps you have a counterexample? Where republicans show sensitivity toward minorities, women, or workers? Like maybe you could show how Republican Leaders showed up to a Martin Luther King Jr. Anniversary Event. Oh wait...
And my whole point was that I DON'T know my own side because Democrats at the moment are all over the place. It's like you're not paying attention.
|
our entire system has become meaningless and incoherent. Nobody has a clear set of beliefs on which they actually act because they are all just in the pocket of lobbyists anyway. Time to send all lobbyists to guantanamo, outlaw political ads on television, and insitute a runoff voting system. Also spy the fuck out of all the bastards as I said before. And make them take a vow of poverty.
|
On September 15 2013 12:30 sam!zdat wrote:
our entire system has become meaningless and incoherent. Nobody has a clear set of beliefs on which they actually act because they are all just in the pocket of lobbyists anyway. Time to send all lobbyists to guantanamo, outlaw political ads on television, and insitute a runoff voting system. Also spy the fuck out of all the bastards as I said before. And make them take a vow of poverty.
We (the world) need more people like you.
|
On September 15 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 10:06 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals) The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen. I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities. That's what the Republican Party stands for. Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks. At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans. You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..." Cartoon version? I cited specific examples from prominent leaders of the party. My examples didn't come from the crazy ones. You're acting downright delusional. There's absolutely nothing cartoonish about what I said, sadly. The real world does in fact work this way. Would you like more examples? Because I will be happy to provide more if you want me to. Perhaps you have a counterexample? Where republicans show sensitivity toward minorities, women, or workers? Like maybe you could show how Republican Leaders showed up to a Martin Luther King Jr. Anniversary Event. Oh wait... And my whole point was that I DON'T know my own side because Democrats at the moment are all over the place. It's like you're not paying attention.
Calm down dude, no reason to get so heated. You cited a few random bonehead moves from leaders and act like that's what the party is all about? Do you think that Obama believes there are 57 states as well? I guess by your logic Democrats can't count. When you use phrases like the the "war on women" and "push against voting rights" you're just repeating liberal talking points. Don't you see this? There are actually two sides to all these issues, but you don't seem able to open your mind to that. That's why I called your views cartoonish, because you seem to think that republican leaders are not much different from Magneto in the X men movies. The real world is a bit more complex; or "nuanced" as John Kerry would say.
Anyway, this guy made the point pretty persuasively -- you should reply to him if you really want to argue about it:
On September 15 2013 06:45 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 05:50 oneofthem wrote:
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win. I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from. They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount. SourceWhat issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe?
|
On September 15 2013 15:19 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 10:06 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals) The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen. I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities. That's what the Republican Party stands for. Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks. At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans. You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..." Cartoon version? I cited specific examples from prominent leaders of the party. My examples didn't come from the crazy ones. You're acting downright delusional. There's absolutely nothing cartoonish about what I said, sadly. The real world does in fact work this way. Would you like more examples? Because I will be happy to provide more if you want me to. Perhaps you have a counterexample? Where republicans show sensitivity toward minorities, women, or workers? Like maybe you could show how Republican Leaders showed up to a Martin Luther King Jr. Anniversary Event. Oh wait... And my whole point was that I DON'T know my own side because Democrats at the moment are all over the place. It's like you're not paying attention. Calm down dude, no reason to get so heated. You cited a few random bonehead moves from leaders and act like that's what the party is all about? Do you think that Obama believes there are 57 states as well? I guess by your logic Democrats can't count. When you use phrases like the the "war on women" and "push against voting rights" you're just repeating liberal talking points. Don't you see this? There are actually two sides to all these issues, but you don't seem able to open your mind to that. That's why I called your views cartoonish, because you seem to think that republican leaders are not much different from Magneto in the X men movies. The real world is a bit more complex; or "nuanced" as John Kerry would say. Anyway, this guy made the point pretty persuasively -- you should reply to him if you really want to argue about it:
DoubleReed was talking about the Republicans that are elected/running, not the voters. And what he said is spot-on based on the policies being passed and the rhetoric being used, and has therefore absolutely nothing to do with a slip-up of the tongue like Obama's 57 states quote.
|
On September 15 2013 15:19 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 10:06 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals) The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen. I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities. That's what the Republican Party stands for. Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks. At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans. You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..." Cartoon version? I cited specific examples from prominent leaders of the party. My examples didn't come from the crazy ones. You're acting downright delusional. There's absolutely nothing cartoonish about what I said, sadly. The real world does in fact work this way. Would you like more examples? Because I will be happy to provide more if you want me to. Perhaps you have a counterexample? Where republicans show sensitivity toward minorities, women, or workers? Like maybe you could show how Republican Leaders showed up to a Martin Luther King Jr. Anniversary Event. Oh wait... And my whole point was that I DON'T know my own side because Democrats at the moment are all over the place. It's like you're not paying attention. Calm down dude, no reason to get so heated. You cited a few random bonehead moves from leaders and act like that's what the party is all about? Do you think that Obama believes there are 57 states as well? I guess by your logic Democrats can't count. When you use phrases like the the "war on women" and "push against voting rights" you're just repeating liberal talking points. Don't you see this? There are actually two sides to all these issues, but you don't seem able to open your mind to that. That's why I called your views cartoonish, because you seem to think that republican leaders are not much different from Magneto in the X men movies. The real world is a bit more complex; or "nuanced" as John Kerry would say. Anyway, this guy made the point pretty persuasively -- you should reply to him if you really want to argue about it: Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 06:45 mozoku wrote:On September 15 2013 05:50 oneofthem wrote:
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win. I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from. They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount. SourceWhat issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe?
I was talking about the elected officials, not the masses.
Forgive me for getting heated but you are completely disregarding the real world that we're living in, where real policies are affecting real people, and there are real problems that need solving. There's nothing cartoonish about it, other than the fact that Republicans are bad guys right now. And those are not isolated incidents of bad silly moves, they are part of a symptomatic problem. It's not like Eric Cantor later admitted that Labor Day isn't about business owners. He did no such thing.
Apparently, it's "liberal" to describe the wide-range of policies being implemented in states all around the country as a War on Women when it includes: cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood; require medically unnecessary ultrasounds for the purposes of shaming; forcing women to explain to their employers why they need birth control; and arbitrary restricting of contraception. We haven't seen this strong a push to restrict reproductive rights since Roe vs. Wade. You can see many of the policies being documented at the ACLU's articles on the War on Women.
And restricting Voting Rights is the same damn thing. Do you think it's a coincidence that suddenly we're not hearing anything anymore about State IDs or whatever? No, we don't. It's because pushing for Voting Reform right now would give minorities the time they need to get the necessary IDs. All Republicans did was spread fear about an overhyped "problem" so that they could disenfranchise minorities. And Republicans have admitted that, so I don't understand why you think I'm being unfair.
There are not two legitimate sides to all these issues. To me, this is like someone saying that there are two sides to Creationism vs Evolution. That's not cartoonish. That's real life.
Let me try this a different way: what evidence would differentiate from the world you live in from the world I live in? Is there anything I can demonstrate that would convince you?
|
On September 15 2013 11:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +FLETCHER, N.C. — Tea party activists, once unquestioned as a benefit to the Republican Party for supplying it with votes and energy, are now criticizing GOP leaders at seemingly every turn.
They're demanding that Congress use upcoming budget votes to deny money for putting in place President Barack Obama's 2010 health care law, despite warnings the strategy could lead to a government shutdown.
They're upset that Republicans didn't block a Senate-passed immigration bill.
Many are outspoken opponents of any U.S. involvement in Syria's civil war.
A recent Pew Research Center survey found that more than 7 in 10 self-identified "tea party Republicans" disapprove of the job performance of GOP congressional leaders.
Many of the major tea party groups are backing 2014 primary challengers against Republicans the activists deem too moderate, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky conservative once declared it his job to make Obama a one-term president.
That leaves some Republicans quietly worried that an intraparty tussle could yield a repeat of 2012. That year, conservative candidates lost winnable Senate races, and GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney struggled to win over conservatives while still appealing to moderate swing voters.
The health care debate puts the GOP in its tightest spot. Wary Republicans recall the 1995-96 government shutdowns under President Bill Clinton, who persuaded many voters to blame the GOP and House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a Georgia Republican, for that budget impasse.
McConnell, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and other GOP congressional leaders endorse the idea to "defund Obamacare." But some also have tried to persuade core supporters that it won't happen because Democrats run the Senate and Obama won't gut his signature domestic achievement. Source
I gotta be honest, I was hoping that President Obama would go in on Syria (although the pattern has distinct rhymes with Bush in Iraq) and the anti-war movement would take a hard look at joining the Tea Party, which is anti-war on largely isolationist grounds but still anti-war. The Tea Party is increasingly angry with the GOP and they've never had any reasons to like the Democrats.
In short, I'm really hoping for a reshuffling of the two parties, using the Tea Party as a substantial splinter group for a hybrid party to whichever side decides it wants to start compromising in a way that will earn it the majority. It seems to happen about once a generation but we haven't seen the likes since Reagan attracted working-class Democrats from the Midwest.
|
Apparently, it's "liberal" to describe the wide-range of policies being implemented in states all around the country as a War on Women
I think it probably hurts the progressive side (which I'm on, for the record) to use obviously hyperbolic phrases like "War on Women." I mean, don't get me wrong, trying to fuck with access to contraception is a deplorable thing, and defunding Planned Parenthood is all kinds of stupid, as well, but I don't think it's entirely fair to the Republicans to presume that it's a concerted attack on women qua women in the same way that, say, lobbying against their right to vote would be. I feel like, if anything, it's a "War on Sexuality." It happens to manifest most visibly in ways that affect female sexuality (since female sexuality tends to have more biological strings attached to it i.e. pregnancy than male) but it's certainly also true that this fits into a wider narrative of a sort of Puritanical approach to sexuality, which ends up screwing over (albeit to a lesser extent and more abstractly than in reality) other groups, as well (e.g. homosexuals of both sexes, sex workers, etc.).
I think to focus on the "they hate women" kind of rhetoric is missing an opportunity to really expose how incredibly wrong the far-right's understanding of sexuality as being fundamentally shameful really is in all cases.
|
On September 15 2013 22:44 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Apparently, it's "liberal" to describe the wide-range of policies being implemented in states all around the country as a War on Women I think it probably hurts the progressive side (which I'm on, for the record) to use obviously hyperbolic phrases like "War on Women." I mean, don't get me wrong, trying to fuck with access to contraception is a deplorable thing, and defunding Planned Parenthood is all kinds of stupid, as well, but I don't think it's entirely fair to the Republicans to presume that it's a concerted attack on women qua women in the same way that, say, lobbying against their right to vote would be. I feel like, if anything, it's a "War on Sexuality." It happens to manifest most visibly in ways that affect female sexuality (since female sexuality tends to have more biological strings attached to it i.e. pregnancy than male) but it's certainly also true that this fits into a wider narrative of a sort of Puritanical approach to sexuality, which ends up screwing over (albeit to a lesser extent and more abstractly than in reality) other groups, as well (e.g. homosexuals of both sexes, sex workers, etc.). I think to focus on the "they hate women" kind of rhetoric is missing an opportunity to really expose how incredibly wrong the far-right's understanding of sexuality as being fundamentally shameful really is in all cases.
This is a little confusing. Would you characterize them as "hating homosexuals" because they don't want gay rights?
Because if you do, then I would just say that if they don't want women's rights then they hate women in the same way. Most of it is reproductive rights, but not all of it. Things like Planned Parenthood lowers accessibility to cancer screenings and pregnancy care.
I don't really understand the point of all this hemming and hawing. Reproductive Rights are critical for people's autonomy and equality in American life. A "War on Sexuality" would need to clarify that we're talking about women's sexuality in particular. It's not like they're trying to ban condoms. Just because the sexism of reproductive rights looks different than the racism of voting rights doesn't mean it's not sexism.
|
On September 15 2013 21:53 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 15:19 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 10:06 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals) The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen. I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities. That's what the Republican Party stands for. Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks. At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans. You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..." Cartoon version? I cited specific examples from prominent leaders of the party. My examples didn't come from the crazy ones. You're acting downright delusional. There's absolutely nothing cartoonish about what I said, sadly. The real world does in fact work this way. Would you like more examples? Because I will be happy to provide more if you want me to. Perhaps you have a counterexample? Where republicans show sensitivity toward minorities, women, or workers? Like maybe you could show how Republican Leaders showed up to a Martin Luther King Jr. Anniversary Event. Oh wait... And my whole point was that I DON'T know my own side because Democrats at the moment are all over the place. It's like you're not paying attention. Calm down dude, no reason to get so heated. You cited a few random bonehead moves from leaders and act like that's what the party is all about? Do you think that Obama believes there are 57 states as well? I guess by your logic Democrats can't count. When you use phrases like the the "war on women" and "push against voting rights" you're just repeating liberal talking points. Don't you see this? There are actually two sides to all these issues, but you don't seem able to open your mind to that. That's why I called your views cartoonish, because you seem to think that republican leaders are not much different from Magneto in the X men movies. The real world is a bit more complex; or "nuanced" as John Kerry would say. Anyway, this guy made the point pretty persuasively -- you should reply to him if you really want to argue about it: On September 15 2013 06:45 mozoku wrote:On September 15 2013 05:50 oneofthem wrote:
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win. I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from. They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount. SourceWhat issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe? I was talking about the elected officials, not the masses. Forgive me for getting heated but you are completely disregarding the real world that we're living in, where real policies are affecting real people, and there are real problems that need solving. There's nothing cartoonish about it, other than the fact that Republicans are bad guys right now. And those are not isolated incidents of bad silly moves, they are part of a symptomatic problem. It's not like Eric Cantor later admitted that Labor Day isn't about business owners. He did no such thing. Apparently, it's "liberal" to describe the wide-range of policies being implemented in states all around the country as a War on Women when it includes: cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood; require medically unnecessary ultrasounds for the purposes of shaming; forcing women to explain to their employers why they need birth control; and arbitrary restricting of contraception. We haven't seen this strong a push to restrict reproductive rights since Roe vs. Wade. You can see many of the policies being documented at the ACLU's articles on the War on Women. And restricting Voting Rights is the same damn thing. Do you think it's a coincidence that suddenly we're not hearing anything anymore about State IDs or whatever? No, we don't. It's because pushing for Voting Reform right now would give minorities the time they need to get the necessary IDs. All Republicans did was spread fear about an overhyped "problem" so that they could disenfranchise minorities. And Republicans have admitted that, so I don't understand why you think I'm being unfair. There are not two legitimate sides to all these issues. To me, this is like someone saying that there are two sides to Creationism vs Evolution. That's not cartoonish. That's real life. Let me try this a different way: what evidence would differentiate from the world you live in from the world I live in? Is there anything I can demonstrate that would convince you?
I hadn't heard about the Eric Cantor / Labour Day flap, so I googled it to find out what you were talking about. I shouldn't have bothered. How this is evidence of anything is beyond me.
The "other side" to the "war on women" arguments is just that some people don't think taxpayers should have to pay for contraception. Also some people think abortion ends a human life and is immoral.
As for voter ID laws, we actually are hearing about them. North Carolina recently passed a law that will apply to the 2016 election. Maybe Salon and TPM haven't covered it. Democrats are up in arms about it as usual, even though this would appear to give everyone ample time to get their documentation in order.
"Republicans are the bad guys". If you really see the world this way, there's probably not much point in continuing this discussion.
|
On September 15 2013 23:09 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2013 21:53 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 15:19 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 12:26 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 10:06 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 07:16 DoubleReed wrote:On September 15 2013 04:26 ziggurat wrote:On September 15 2013 01:16 farvacola wrote:On September 14 2013 11:37 Danglars wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 14 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2013 08:32 Danglars wrote:On September 14 2013 08:13 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Obamacare is becoming a huge headache for the Republican Party.
Conservative advocacy groups are rallying behind House legislation backed by 43 Republicans to threaten a government shutdown unless Obamacare is defunded, undercutting GOP leaders’ efforts to lock in low spending levels by goading the party into a self-defeating confrontation.
Within 24 hours of its Thursday release, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) threw his support behind the bill, as did the well-funded groups Club For Growth, FreedomWorks and Heritage Action.
“The Club for Growth strongly supports the legislation offered by Congressman Tom Graves to save America from Obamacare,” said Chris Chocola, the group’s president, boasting that “momentum is building” to stop the health care reform law.
House GOP leaders, who have few votes to spare, are determined to pass their proposal to continue spending at sequestration levels and force a Senate vote to defund Obamacare without risking a shutdown. House leadership is open to tweaking the specifics but they want to achieve three goals: continue the sequester, give Senate Republicans a chance to fight Obamacare and maintain leverage against the health care going into the debt limit fight. The 43 Republicans behind the Graves bill haven’t implicitly committed to opposing leaders’ version.
“House Republicans have been fighting Obamacare for three years and we’ve achieved several victories. We’re happy that Senators Cruz and Lee are joining us in this fight, and we want to give them the opportunity to fight it,” said a senior House GOP aide. “And we’re happy that these groups have finally recognized that a delay strategy is smarter than a defund strategy. Now we hope they can help us strategically get that victory as opposed to squandering it.”
Conservatives, meanwhile, are undercutting — and infuriating — Republican leaders who want to be pragmatic about what they can achieve in the continuing resolution. Democrats, they recognize, are vulnerable on spending levels but won’t cave on Obamacare. As a result, if the hard right’s desires get in the way of reaffirming sequestration cuts (even temporarily), the GOP may lose on all fronts. Veteran Republicans realize the party out of power will be blamed if the government shuts down, and their negotiating hand weakened over how much it should spend upon re-opening.
The conservative opposition to Obamacare has become unappeasable and it’s tearing the GOP apart. The base is anxious to make a stand now because implementation of the law is set to accelerate on Oct. 1 and its major components poised to take effect on Jan. 1. Advocates privately gloat about their chances of sticking it to GOP leaders as they mobilize in favor of a standoff. Stare down President Barack Obama until he blinks on his own signature achievement, they demand of the GOP, even if it means shutting down the government. But Republican leaders aren’t optimistic that he’ll blink, and worry that initiating this battle could damage their already weak brand and threaten their otherwise secure House majority. Source I don't know if you can get more biased reporting than that. It's a headache, its undercutting the party, its goading into self defeating confrontation. It's supported by well-funded groups. Undercutting again, infuriating again. Conservatives have become unapeasable, they're tearing the GOP apart. They're staring down Obama. Advocates are privately gloating. Humorous coverage. One of the disillusioning facts about Washington is that Congress can vote on something and that vote won’t mean a thing.
It would seem that a congressional vote should be a meaningful occasion, with Members weighing the costs and benefits of voting for the particular measure at hand. Unfortunately, political gamesmanship often leads them to create voting opportunities that have no real impact, but will allow them to tell constituents, “I voted for this” or “I voted against that.”
The House of Representatives was heading in that direction—considering a proposal that purported to defund Obamacare but wouldn’t actually achieve that goal. This is what voters have come to expect from Capitol Hill and why Congress has such low standing with the American people. source:heritage+ Show Spoiler [Obamacare's amendments,delays] + At first I thought you were trying to make a reasonable point and then you go and post a tardbarn image which contradicts your apparent frustration with biased reporting. Not only is that image biased, the fact that you think that it is somehow relevant to your viewpoint makes me wonder how you are able to operate a computer. I hereby decree, in your honor, that starting now, this nation will be governed by the first draft of of every bill that has ever passed. Because apparently making revisions is a bad thing. Also, any bills which were not implemented exactly according to their original timetable shall be nullified. Thank you, you great thinker you! The preponderance of changes and delayed implementations are proof to the contrary. You are being dishonest when you imply that I'm merely quibbling about the changes. It is how many changes Obamacare has been through so soon after passage that stands out. Two thousand pages and billed to solve all kinds of problems and essentially cost the consumer nothing. Secondly, it is unheard of for the President to take such an active part in changing bills. His agency structure is tantamount to a fourth branch of government, with law amending powers. Frankly, there's about two HuffPo and other liberal news outlets a page, so it would do some good to give consideration to other news articles. Particularly, in this case, the biased reporting on a conservative goal to force Congress to start acting on their stated beliefs. My previous post stands. Who other than Democrats are so gleefully predicting the breakup of the Republican party in the terms I referred to? I hardly think you were even prepared to accept a different viewpoint or let another reason their case, given how eager you are to engage in ad hominem attacks.
Can we please stop whining about biases and actually address the merits of various issues? Everyone who has an interest in politics has some opinions, and those held opinions result in biases. Fox, MSNBC, National Review, TPM, all of these organizations have editorial biases. Furthermore, pretty much every political reporter or politician has some bias of some sort, with varying levels and directions of biases. What matters is the merits and truthfulness of their assertions. When their biases result in outright dishonesty or inability to perceive demonstrable facts, yeah, complain about bias. But can we please stop making that the first point of argument? No matter how biased TPM may be, that doesn't change whether or not the American Care Act is a good idea. And their bias doesn't even affect whether or not what they said about Republicans is true.
To the point, the TPM articles pointed to the split between Senate Republicans and Congressional Republicans, with the Senators wanting to grandstand and strut about (because Democratic senators are the majority) while the Congressmen are left having to actually pass a bill (because Republicans Congressmen are the majority). This is a real point. Bias be damned.
Almost a quarter of the news stories in this thread the last handful of pages have been pointing to differences the Tea Party conservatives, and allies, are having with the moderates. If you prefer the reporting of the liberals on the differences happening within the opposition party, maybe you should reconsider your evaluation of sources. Posted was an egregious example of such reporting, and I pointed out what made it so. It's a hit piece and the language makes it so. The argument of the conservative right is that moderate republicans are holding nonsense votes and fleeing from action that might have an effect. It's not reported in the last few page's articles. If you were on the right and viewed the parade of liberal media outlet articles, you'd get tired of the faintly concealed glee. The Republican party is infighting, hooray! Those who already view it as an old dinosaur going extinct (partially correct in leadership, not base) don't have quite the appreciative eye for this. When Tea Party types refuse to acknowledge party membership on behalf of the so called RINOS with a wave of the hand and a whisper of "He/she is a secret liberal", its no surprise that y'all are trying to dismiss anything overtly negative as exterior and dismissible. That's ok though, with how folks like Ted Cruz operate in the public-political sphere, your hands are tied when it comes to legitimately addressing the problems facing your political collective. Just keep hunkering down, I'm sure it'll work out. (for liberals) The Republican party need to figure out what it stands for. The last few years have been shitty for republicans, partly because the party hasn't been able to present a clear message to anyone. I suppose a lot of infighting is the only way that figuring out process is going to happen. I don't really understand this. The Republican party has been very clear what it stands for. Whether it's Romney's 47% comments, Paul Ryan's rejection of secularism, Eric Cantor not understanding what Labor Day is about, the push against voting rights in minority districts, or the war on women, the party's message is pretty goddamn clear. When they aren't showing blatant contempt, they are showing complete disregard for workers, women, and minorities. That's what the Republican Party stands for. Do you know what the Democrats stand for? I have no clue. Have you gotten a clear message from Democrats? Because I haven't. They're all over the map, unlike Republicans. You've got stupid authoritarians like Bloomberg who thinks racial profiling is totally awesome and that it's classy to call fellow Democrat Elizabeth Warren a socialist because she wants to break up the banks. At the moment Democrats just stand for anyone who isn't as crazy as the Republicans. You are describing your own cartoon version of the party. Although to be fair to you it's a version that's propagated by a lot of left-wing media outlets. But it's not the reality. "He who knows only his own side of the case knows but little of that ..." Cartoon version? I cited specific examples from prominent leaders of the party. My examples didn't come from the crazy ones. You're acting downright delusional. There's absolutely nothing cartoonish about what I said, sadly. The real world does in fact work this way. Would you like more examples? Because I will be happy to provide more if you want me to. Perhaps you have a counterexample? Where republicans show sensitivity toward minorities, women, or workers? Like maybe you could show how Republican Leaders showed up to a Martin Luther King Jr. Anniversary Event. Oh wait... And my whole point was that I DON'T know my own side because Democrats at the moment are all over the place. It's like you're not paying attention. Calm down dude, no reason to get so heated. You cited a few random bonehead moves from leaders and act like that's what the party is all about? Do you think that Obama believes there are 57 states as well? I guess by your logic Democrats can't count. When you use phrases like the the "war on women" and "push against voting rights" you're just repeating liberal talking points. Don't you see this? There are actually two sides to all these issues, but you don't seem able to open your mind to that. That's why I called your views cartoonish, because you seem to think that republican leaders are not much different from Magneto in the X men movies. The real world is a bit more complex; or "nuanced" as John Kerry would say. Anyway, this guy made the point pretty persuasively -- you should reply to him if you really want to argue about it: On September 15 2013 06:45 mozoku wrote:On September 15 2013 05:50 oneofthem wrote:
i think it's pretty clear what the republicans stand for. problem is they stand for it too much, and not enough people like them enough for them to win. I wouldn't be so sure it's clear what they stand for. Besides opposition to Obamacare, the GOP is hardly unified on anything these days. And even that is leading to division within the party it seems. They can't agree on foreign policy, social issues like same-sex marriage, and they're divided on immigration reform. They agree on spending cuts, but again, they're divided on where the cuts should come from. They're even divided on where the party should go and how much they should compromise. Based on a poll two months ago, 54% of Republicans believe the party should move further right, and 40% believe the party should move in a more moderate direction. Meanwhile, 35% of Republicans say congressional Republicans compromise too much, 27% say they don't compromise enough, and 32% they compromise about the right amount. SourceWhat issues are they unified on these days? Gun control maybe? I was talking about the elected officials, not the masses. Forgive me for getting heated but you are completely disregarding the real world that we're living in, where real policies are affecting real people, and there are real problems that need solving. There's nothing cartoonish about it, other than the fact that Republicans are bad guys right now. And those are not isolated incidents of bad silly moves, they are part of a symptomatic problem. It's not like Eric Cantor later admitted that Labor Day isn't about business owners. He did no such thing. Apparently, it's "liberal" to describe the wide-range of policies being implemented in states all around the country as a War on Women when it includes: cuts off funding to Planned Parenthood; require medically unnecessary ultrasounds for the purposes of shaming; forcing women to explain to their employers why they need birth control; and arbitrary restricting of contraception. We haven't seen this strong a push to restrict reproductive rights since Roe vs. Wade. You can see many of the policies being documented at the ACLU's articles on the War on Women. And restricting Voting Rights is the same damn thing. Do you think it's a coincidence that suddenly we're not hearing anything anymore about State IDs or whatever? No, we don't. It's because pushing for Voting Reform right now would give minorities the time they need to get the necessary IDs. All Republicans did was spread fear about an overhyped "problem" so that they could disenfranchise minorities. And Republicans have admitted that, so I don't understand why you think I'm being unfair. There are not two legitimate sides to all these issues. To me, this is like someone saying that there are two sides to Creationism vs Evolution. That's not cartoonish. That's real life. Let me try this a different way: what evidence would differentiate from the world you live in from the world I live in? Is there anything I can demonstrate that would convince you? I hadn't heard about the Eric Cantor / Labour Day flap, so I googled it to find out what you were talking about. I shouldn't have bothered. How this is evidence of anything is beyond me. The "other side" to the "war on women" arguments is just that some people don't think taxpayers should have to pay for contraception. Also some people think abortion ends a human life and is immoral. As for voter ID laws, we actually are hearing about them. North Carolina recently passed a law that will apply to the 2016 election. Maybe Salon and TPM haven't covered it. Democrats are up in arms about it as usual, even though this would appear to give everyone ample time to get their documentation in order. "Republicans are the bad guys". If you really see the world this way, there's probably not much point in continuing this discussion.
What? You're just going to close your ears and refuse to talk? Why? I genuinely don't understand why you think Republicans aren't the bad guys. Could you please clarify? All you have said is that they are "nuanced," which doesn't say anything.
The War on Women refers to much more general restrictions of access to birth control. It does not necessarily have to do with taxpayers (although birth control saves taxpayers money so this is a nonsensical argument anyway). It also refers to shaming tactics like the abortion ultrasounds or requiring employees to request "permission" for birth control from their employers.
I see the world this way right now, sure. That's the tide that politics has gone. The Republicans have very recently gone full cray-cray, and what's depressing is that people are still acting like we have two reasonable sides to the discussion. Honestly, this is giving me the impression that the Republicans could talk about the legitimacy of lynchings and there will always be centrists who will say "There are two sides to this issue! Why are you being so extreme to suggest that lynchings have no merit whatsoever? Both sides make good points!"
That's cartoonish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/auMsK4b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.akawilliam.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/tea-party-frankenstein-510x373.jpg)
